Subject:
|
Re: Are we doing the right thing?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 31 Aug 2001 21:39:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1484 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.build.mecha, Shaun Sullivan writes:
> In lugnet.build.mecha, Mladen Pejic writes:
> > I agree 110% with James!
> >
> > Look at the Cold War for example, both the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. had enough
> > nuclear weapons to annihilate the world, but did they? Deterrence is what
> > prevented both nations from even thinking about launching their arsenals.
>
> If anything, I'd say that this reinforces a point that Eric made, at least by
> example. That point being that a strong military is useful in deterring other
> nations from attacking yours, but speaks nothing as to whether or not your
> nation will attack another.
>
> The USSR never (directly) attacked the US, and vice versa, given that their
> adversary in those cases had a comparable miltary might.
>
> BUT, neither nation has, since WWII, displayed much consternation over
> conflicts against supposedly inferior (militarily speaking) nations - e.g.
> Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Panama.
>
> I don't think anybody will argue the point that the 98 pound weakling is very
> unlikely to go head to head with the 280 pound bully (that's about 6 stone and
> 18 stone, respectively ;), but drawing the conclusion that by being 280 pounds
> the bully will live peacefully ever after seems somewhat misguided. Given that
> it is unlikely that all nations will be on equal footing anytime in the
> forseeable future, having large armaments doesn't ensure peace - though it does
> ensure that (most) others probably won't directly be the instigators of any
> non-peaceful situations that you are involved in.
>
> Note that I am *not* saying that a strong military should therefore be
> discarded ... I recognize the merit in the notion that it is advantageous to at
> least ensure that no one is likely to attack you - that way, you've at least
> eliminated the external source of conflict.
>
> Interesting sidebars:
>
> (1) How do "police actions" fit into this? When a nation acts in a way that is
> detrimental to another nation's interests, without actually challenging the
> sovereignty of that nation (i.e., Iraq, Serbia, Bosnia, Somalia (?)), who is
> the actual instigator if the two nations engage? Keep in mind, behaving in a
> way detrimental to another nation's benefit doesn't necessarily constitute a
> call to arms ... businesses have to do it all the time to other businesses, and
> we (the US, that is - we can rag on Imperial Britain some other time ;)
> certainly have few qualms about doing it to other nations. Given that the
> nature of many countries' relationships is competitive, who is the actual
> instigator in a combatative situation as described above?
I think that "police actions" are birds of two different feathers:
1) Those with a clear moral imperative - Rwanda comes to mind. Oh wait. We
just watched the massacre happen. Never mind.
2) Those "police actions" that are really calculated to serve political
objectives of the "peace-keepers." For example:
a) The NATO-led mission in Bosnia during the mid-nineties was mainly carried
out, IMO, because we (the West, for the most part) were able to get in there and
try to shape geopolitical politics to our advantage while a weak Russia remained
impotent to the situation. Maybe (and I hope that this is true) atrocities such
as Sebrenika (I know that is terribly misspelled) did motivate our collective
peace-keeping consciences, but the Rwanda massacre sure didn't.
b) Our current mucking about in Macedonia: I'd wager that we care more about
maintaining a nice civil balance between Greece and Turkey - a balance that
helps to maintain NATO stability and keeps that all-important Islamic Middle-
Eastern laison in the fold - than we do about just and moral government in
Macedonia.
An interesting peace-keeping nation is Pakistan; though it is a relatively weak
country (nukes notwithstanding), it never fails to pull its weight in foreign
crisis, even when its said crisis don't really alter its geopolitical balance -
as in Bosnia, for instance.
> (2) Clearly, a strong military is next-to-useless against a well organized
> terrorist movement. All our tanks and planes and ships didn't help much in
> Oklahoma, or at the World Trade Center. And given that terrorism is a popular
> means of combatting the policies of stronger (aka 280 pound) nations, how does
> the strong military promote peace and a safe population?
And therein lies the challenge of the brave new world. Official shows-of-force
aren't really adequate to the challenge of the 21st century threats to national
security - terrorists. No nation on earth is going to launch nukes against a
similarly-armed enemy, but a small boat with a small nuke in somebody's harbor
is an insidious threat than no amount of technological boondoggling (i.e., the
missile defense) can address.
just some thoughts
james
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
50 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
